Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pretty Lies’ Category

Recall the CH axiom about any social “””science””” coming out of a feminism-drenched university: If there’s a women’s studies department, the good bet is that the social science department is similarly corrupted, and any feminist-friendly findings are likely to be tainted and worthless. Leftist saturation of academia has become so bad that social expectation bias and self-serving bogus science rubber-stamping the equalist narrative are more the norm than the exception.

On that premise, here’s Greg Cochran sticking the shiv in the hide of yet another crappy feminist study that defies credulity.

I just noticed an new article in PNAS – research by Daphna Joel a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University. Using MRI, she concludes that the brains of men and women aren’t really different. She suggests that the notion that men and women behave differently may be a myth.

She is, of course, utterly full of shit. It’s fountaining out of every pore: her hair will never go gray. We know of many sex differences in the brain – not just volume, not just the fraction of gray matter vs white matter, not just big differences in the incidences of neuropsychiatric disorders like autism and anorexia nervosa. In a few cases (like CAH, or androgen sensitivity, or maybe Turner’s syndrome) we know something about the developmental mechanisms involved. We see analogous differences in animal models: and no, it’s not culture. […]

…similarity in gross anatomy does not ensure similar behavioral tendencies. If I compared the brain of a pit bull with that of a similar-sized border collie, I doubt if I could see the behavioral differences in the size of the amygdala or whatever. Those behavioral differences exist, they’re innate, they have a physical/genetic basis – but at the moment I couldn’t tell you what brain differences to look for. Could be differences in the distribution of neurotransmitter receptors, or differences in axon length, or dendrite connectivity – lots of things, including many that wouldn’t show up on MRI.

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life can’t help but notice men and women are on average different in some powerfully fundamental ways. Desire, sexual proclivity, communication, hobbies, occupational preferences, bathroom habits… the list of REAL WORLD sex differences goes on for miles.

Yet we are supposed to believe a raging lunatic feminist burnishing a conveniently pro-equalist study while steeped in the toxins of a feminist milieu? Yeah, no.

Read Full Post »

From a long thread at MPC about the “red pill”, the assertion in this post raised an eyebrow:

One of the major problems with the Manosphere (that betrays the fact that it’s really just a vehicle for misogynists to try and get laid)

What did I tell you about tradcons sounding just like feminists in their shared compulsion to pathologize male sexuality? So now men with a working libido are “misogynist” according to the tradcon worldview.

is that they demonize female promiscuity while glorifying male promiscuity.

I don’t read red pill sites (except on rare occasions when readers send a link to one they regard as worthy of my attention). Speaking on behalf of the Chateau lordship, there is no “demonization” of female sexuality here. The telling of ugly truths about female nature is not the same as railing against female sexual nature and hoping it goes away or can be turned into something more benign to an equalist view of the sexes. (A glib “is, not ought” should suffice here.)

Now, it is true that, in a vacuum, female promiscuity is far worse than male promiscuity.

“In a vacuum”. How sophistic. Since when has the sexual market ever operated “in a vacuum”? Never. And yet, for reasons explained here ad nauseam (although apparently not nauseam enough), female promiscuity is more corrosive than male promiscuity to relationship and family stability and, scaled up, to societal stability. Yes, sluts really are more dangerous to social health than are cads.

However, male promiscuity REQUIRES either female promiscuity or homosexuality in order to occur.

This is the assertion that roused an eyebrow. (Ignore the homo slur, which is typical MPCspeak when faced with the task of explaining vigorous and unapologetic male heterosexuality.) Superficially, it sounds credible. After all, it takes two to tango. More cads must necessarily mean more sluts to complete the pairings.

Except, it doesn’t work that way. Betraying a deep ignorance (or willful dissembling) about the nature of the sexual market and the psychosexual differences between the sexes, this MPC poaster fails to grasp the reality of female hypergamy and male desire for variety, and how those intrinsic dispositions can affect the arithmetic of romantic pairings.

The top 20% of women strongly prefer to be with the top 10% of men. The top 10% of men will spread their seed among the top 30% of women (and often more widely than that), only strongly preferring the top 10% of women when they are serious about commitment and settling down.

The hypergamy-polygyny nexus results in a shaky equilibrium where a small percentage of cads are having sex with a larger percentage of women. But these cads jump from woman to woman, or they keep multiple women as sexual outlets in a de facto harem, meeting up with each one on an irregular basis, (hence the common complaint among woman dating jerkboys that the jerks they love are never around).

What this means in practice is that one promiscuous man will date ten less promiscuous women, since each of his lovers is likely to be with only him and not sharing him with other men in a multiple concurrent sexual relationship arrangement. (Women are more averse than men are to fucking multiple lovers concurrently.)

Conclusion: yes, male promiscuity can coexist with female chastity. Or a reasonable 2016 facsimile of female chastity.

Up to a point.

Eventually, if there are enough cads (cf., Africa) then sluts will have to increase in number to keep up with the changing ratio of fevered flings to lukewarm LTRs. A society in which 90% of men were promiscuous cads would require a boost in the numbers of promiscuous sluts to bring balance to the sexual force. Or one VERY slutty woman to service all those men.

Read Full Post »

Cuckservatives adore the idea of assimilation like they do heterosexual sex; from a distance, as an abstract concept. When things between tribes aren’t going well, the cuck pipes up to assert all that’s needed is more encouragement to immigrants to “assimilate” to the American Way of Life. The cuck imagines assimilation as some magical process or cosmic intervention that appears after the requisite number of incantations calling for it by name are scattered throughout op-eds and on TV talk shows.

Now shitlibs are getting in on the assimilation racket (they used to be against it, arguing that America isn’t a melting pot, it’s a salad bowl, but recent trends have them worried the salad bowl is turning into a toxic stew so they’re backtracking to good ol’ assimilation to save their White dispossession project). You’ll hear increasingly frantic calls for Assimilation as Diversity spreads like a black goo over the nation, snuffing out the last strands of societal trust and bonhomie.

Too late. Current events are throwing into stark relief the reality that Assimilationism is a failed ideology, and its failures will become more apparent as there is a rise in the numbers of disparate peoples the ideology must accommodate and manage to meld into a workable social contract.

From Alec Leamas,

It’s not hard to see how a flood of young male and Muslim reinforcements from the Near East and Africa is going to embolden the extant second generation Muslims who may have been born in Europe but who will never be Europeans. The Rapefugees’ behavior is a given; the resident Muslims will be more free to act on their existing fantasies of power and conquest.

This is an insightful point. A tribe’s essence may sleep, but it never dies. It may lie dormant, but it will never go extinct. As new immigrants gain numerical power and ruling class protection in their host nations, the tribal instinct within their second and third generation cousins already in the country is released from its artificial suppression. The few secular liberal minority tokens that equalist leftoids, in a pique of supreme naivete, assume are representative of all of the minority tribe’s people, will recede to nothingness as their half-hearted voices are drowned out by the ululations of their extended family. To put it more bluntly, that smiling taxi driver praising America will revert with a quickness to the mores and standards of his race as soon as there are enough of his kind in close proximity to safely let his assimilationist mask slip.

Assimilationism doesn’t take long to reach diminishing returns, and even to expose the absorbing culture to deleterious regression to the behavioral norms of the immigrants. The more immigrants, and the more different the immigrants, the less likely assimilation is to work, and the more likely assimilationist rhetoric will ramp up to conceal its ineffectiveness.

Assimilation to the host nation’s way of life can work, but only under very strict preconditions:

  1. the immigrants are not genetically and culturally distant from the native population into which they are assimilating.
  2. the number of immigrants don’t exceed a threshold above which their natural born racial characteristics can’t be contained and redirected into expressions more compatible with the host nation’s culture.
  3. the host nation culture has the self-confidence and pride of place to demand total acquiescence to its norms from the arriving immigrants.

Western nations are currently failing on all three assimilation preconditions: Post-1965 immigrants are almost entirely nonWhite, the numbers of them are astronomical, and the host nations have lost faith in themselves while they bend over backwards to assist immigrants in retaining and celebrating the cultures of the homelands they abandoned for Western prosperity.

Even when assimilation “works” — e.g., when Anglo-Germanic America absorbed millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — there are immense costs and miseries that must be overcome along the way. And those costs are never completely paid off. Irish-Americans to this day still vote more Leftist than a typical Olde Anglo-Germanic American of yore would have been comfortable voting. And Italian-American communities have more corruption than adjacent Anglo communities. And don’t get me started on the Eskimos…

But the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, et al are White ethnics, meaning that they aren’t so genetically and culturally dissimilar from Anglo-Germanic Whites that their assimilation into the American fabric was ordained to fail absent the heavy hand of a police and surveillance state to keep everyone in line. Plus, their immigration was halted in the 1924 Act to preserve the Anglo White character of America. Intermarriage with other Whites further helped their assimilation, and this White ethnic intermarriage also contributed to the unique characteristics of Americans relative to their Old Country European cousins. This was a history of ethnicity-mixing among already high-achieving peoples (compared to world standards) that buttressed America’s strength.

So past immigrant waves to the US satisfied, more or less, assimilation preconditions #1 and #2, and from all accounts #3 was also operative up until oh, 1970 or so. The assimilation calculation has changed a lot since then, (but don’t tell the Ellis Island schmaltz shoppers that). Now the US’s immigrants couldn’t be more genetically/culturally different from the Anglo-Germanic substrate, couldn’t be more numerically unmanageable, and couldn’t be more free to avoid assimilation to a native stock American norm in favor of a globalist multikult credo. This is a recipe for the complete annihilation of the historical American culture (and subcultures).

I should mention there’s one other way assimilation can work when the above three preconditions aren’t met: Assimilation to a new norm via race mixing. This is the goal of the globo-homo elite. They want historic America to die in a hodge-podge of race-mixed mediocrities and consumers of perishable goods, who will then assimilate to a new, recombined America that is changed for eternity right down to its DNA.

For the record, the Chateau’s immigration policy proposals (restated here from previous posts) is:

  • sixty year (i.e., three generations) immigration moratorium
  • deportation of all illegals
  • end of birthright citizenship
  • end of H-1B program (and similar wage-gutting loopholes)
  • favored immigrant status extended to NW Europeans when immigration flow is re-opened
  • South and East Europeans receive second favored status
  • immigrants from all other groups admitted based on education/skill and only in trivial numbers

Reading this, I’m sure a shitlib’s head is about to go Scanners, but perspective is a beautiful virtue. A mere sixty years ago, this immigration policy list would have been considered eminently sensible and uncontroversial by the vast majority of Americans. Here’s to hoping Trump Makes America Sensible Again.

Read Full Post »

An anti-Game theme that occasionally surfaces in Dank Right blogs that lean towards the tradcon is the idea that learning successful methods and means to seduce women is somehow indicative of a *beep boop* sperg mentality which women hate, and that is why “Gamers” have trouble with women.

The premise is false along multiple fronts, but the major departure from reality is the belief that this tradcon caricature of PUAs, or the term I prefer, “self-improved casanovas”, is wholly alien to the natural born Naturals who “have a way with women”. This belief assumes the man who actively learns how to seduce women is an autistic reductionist, or a nerdy systematizer, who will never really get women because of his emotional limitations.

No doubt, Naturals work their magic with an intuitive gracefulness they have likely possessed since puberty, and maybe earlier. I’ve had the fortune to count a number of Naturals as friends. I’ve seen them in-field, and their crimson art is truly a majesty to behold. They seduce with an effortlessness and serene confidence that can only be acquired from years of successful beddings and other forms of positive feedback from women.

And the naturals I knew (and know) were/are not preternaturally handsome. They were average-looking men who seemed more handsome than they were because they projected their charm and masculinity through smirks, squints, and slickly smooth verbal sorcery.

So what about the Self-Improved Casanova (SIC) and his commonality with the Natural? What Game haters don’t seem to grasp is that Naturals behave around women EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as “reductionist spergs” do. The main difference is skillfulness of execution, but that is something that the latter will improve with practice. Another difference: Many Naturals don’t actually know why women react so well to what they do. Relying on intuition tends to dull one’s faculty of self-assessment.

Naturals perform intuitively the same pickup techniques and strategies that SICs perform with foreknowledge. That’s the only real distinction between them. In fact, much of what the Game-aware community knows about women’s sexual nature and about the male behaviors and traits women strongly respond to is gleaned from a collection of observations of Naturals interacting with women in the field.

The *beep boop* impression comes about because some people who encounter Game teachings are uncomfortable with the systematic analysis and breakdown of a human activity — romance — that historically has been thought of as magical, nebulous, and even divine. And, yes, many Game newbs are men who don’t have intuitive social grace, and while they are learning how to be better with women will tend to exhibit the *beep boop* quality until they get more comfortable applying what they’ve learned.

All of which is to say, Naturals and Game practitioners are a difference in degree, not kind.

***

It occurred to me to clarify that this post shouldn’t be read as a brazen assertion that any man can, with enough practice, become a Natural. That is false. By way of analogy, not every man can, with practice, become a pro baseball player. But he can become a better recreational baseball player than he would be without practice.

So it goes with seduction Systematizers emulating Naturals. If you are a born sperg, yours will be an uphill battle indeed. But if you apply yourself, you WILL get more dates, and with cuter girls than you would have gotten “just being yourself”. It works this way because the courtship behavior of Naturals (aka alpha males) is a code like any other human behavior that is open to cracking. Once cracked — that is, once you see the Vaytrix — emulation of the behaviors of Naturals will work to your non-Natural’s benefit.

Read Full Post »

Petition to rename Google to Spoogle, to better reflect the company they have become: A rePOZitory of the hoariest antiWhite, pro-globalist elite propaganda you will find this side of the race cuck Hajnal line.

Google spooges its equalist leftoid disease all over America’s face, and we are supposed to sit here and take their toxic homo loads without protest?

Remember Spoogle’s motto, “Don’t be evil”? HA. That didn’t last long. How about “Destroy your anus.” This is a good time to jettison all Google products and Google-affiliated products from your lives. There are alternatives. You just have to…. bust a move. The fight against White dispossession has to start somewhere, and it’s a small sacrifice to unlatch from Spoogle’s AIDS dick compared to the sacrifices that will be required of you in the coming years.

PS If you Spoogle “happy american couple” this is what your favorite search and replace engine returns:

Not a parody. Try it.

Fuck (((Spoogle))). They want a war? They’ll get one.

Read Full Post »

Jonathan Haidt wrote about disgust occupying a dimension of human morality. He found, (unsurprisingly if you’ve trawled the internet for five minutes), that leftoids have a higher disgust threshold than non-leftoids. (That is, they can more happily tolerate disgusting things in their lives.)

I bring this up because a world in which disgust is abandoned as a moral consideration starts quickly filling up with people like the demon mom this post will introduce to you. A society recklessly surrendering even the pretense of monitoring culture health for signs of encroaching trends that elicit the disgust reflex is a society that will in short order be overrun by disgusting people and the disgusting things they do.

Every year, I give presentations about my health classes to the parents of my students. And inevitably, every year, someone will express relief at the idea that I’ll be talking to their kids about sex so that they’ll be spared the awkwardness of doing so themselves.

Numbnuts Class Hivemind Indoctrination incoming!

This reminds me: leftoids always attack. They never relent in their desire to strip the good from the world and replace it with their island of misfit degenerates. The only effective counterattack is to not play the game by their rules. Go on the attack and put THEM in the defensive crouch. Abide YOUR frame, not theirs.

At this point, I almost expect that. After all, for a lot of people, talking about sex with their kids is awkward. As my friend May said of having such conversations with her three- and eight-year-olds, “Their dad and I are nervous about it in general, so I know we’re putting it off.”

You know, there’s a good reason Nature designed it so that talking about sex with your three-year-old feels awkward: because it IS awkward and you shouldn’t be doing it.

Plus, a lot of parents didn’t talk about sex with adults when they were growing up, and so don’t have a model of how to do so.

Amazing the human race managed to survive this long without sex-ed classes for toddlers.

But talking openly to your kids is one of the best ways to raise them with a positive view of sexuality

When a shitlib feminist uses the word “positive” with regards to sex, she means “as often as humanly possible, with a black man, involving depraved acts and rectally-inserted objects, but only after verbal consent is established incrementally on the minute, every minute.”

– and to challenge the conventional and damaging messages so many are getting on the subject.

Like how not to spend the day with a vibrating buttplug slipping dangerously close to irretrievability?

For example, do you want your kids to have accurate information about how their bodies work and to feel good in their skin?

Buffalo Bill here reminding you that it’s possible to feel good in another person’s skin.

Whatever your wishes, having a sense of them will go a long way in helping your children navigate these waters in a manner that feels true to your family.

Female poopytalk. Thank you, women’s studies degree programs! (mo’ money for dem…)

Yet separating sex from reproduction can be hard to do. That’s because then you need to talk about desire, and pleasure, and as I did recently with my nine-year-old,

:shock:

things like oral sex. (“Eeeew,” she groaned after I gave a basic description, “That is so gross. What if someone didn’t wipe!?”)

Smart kid. Dumb parent. Mix the two: child abuse.

But kids find a lot of things kind of gross and aren’t traumatized.

Like steaming dog shit. So the answer is to shove buckets of steaming dog shit in kids’ faces, naturally.

And explaining that many people have sex not to have babies, but because it feels nice and can forge intimacy and connection, isn’t actually all that hard to say.

Grooming your White child for that sweet, sweet 0.7 below-replacement fertility rate.

2. Start Conversations About Consent Early

Feminist cunt mom is about to unload some Holy Matriarchy injunctions on her kid.

When addressing consent with young kids, you can teach them that they need to get permission to touch others by asking peers and siblings things like “Can I hug you?” or “Can I hold your hand?”

Or, “How to turn your emotionally healthy child into a creepy, psychologically unstable, socially clumsy spergatron.”

Children should also have their physical boundaries respected by adults.

But not their psychological boundaries.

Adults often think it is perfectly fine to continue to tickle or wrestle a child who is asking them to stop. But it isn’t – and it teaches kids that they don’t really have control over their bodies.

This psychobitch sounds like a lot of fun to be around.

Kids should also be allowed to change their minds. They shouldn’t, for instance, be taught that keeping a promise is always the most moral thing to do.

Shitlibs train their sprog early in the art of traitorous status whoring.

With older kids, explain that consent for sex can be withdrawn at any time. […] Plus, kids and teens should know that you can stop a sexual interaction at any time, even if both people are naked and fooling around. Even in the middle of a sex act.

Nothing says “this is completely natural and loving” like teaching your daughter to demand consent after every thrust into her vagina, and your son to be ready to stop right up to, and including, the point of imminent ejaculation. Just another feminist whackjob demonstrating a clear lack of understanding and empathy for physical and emotional differences between the sexes (and between children and adults).

It also has to be clear that consent shouldn’t be wheedled or coerced, and that there are circumstances under which consent cannot freely be given – like if you’re asleep, passed out, incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or under age.

And consent can’t be freely acknowledged when drunk, either. Game set match, feminist shrike.

it’s understood that teens who want to drive, or take calculus, or play violin should be given the space to learn how to do so before we expect any mastery of the subject.

But when it comes to sex, we deny children the ability to develop their skills, and then blame them when things don’t go well.

Feminist brainwashing agent thinks sex is like calculus, even though field mice manage it without a propaganda blitz instructing them in the act.

And while there are ways for kids to practice sex, many teens are forced to do so in secret. This can be the result of parents’ rules. But it also happens because things like looking at porn or sexting are illegal for minors.

And while such laws are ostensibly designed to protect children, particularly when it comes to sexting, they can do more harm than good.

“ostensibly”. This is what a disgust threshold set to infinity looks like.

For a lot of American parents, the idea of allowing a teen to have a sleepover with a boyfriend or girlfriend, let alone with a casual hook up, seems either like excessive permissiveness, or actual negligence or harm.

For a lot of American parents, insane feminist nonsense hasn’t yet polluted their ability to think clearly.

I know that was something my parents worried about when the issue came up for me as a teen. Ultimately, they let me stay over at my boyfriend’s, but they also made it clear that they were only doing so because they wanted to know where I was.

Her feeble parents wanted to be sure she was slutting it up at a known address instead of behind the 7-11.

We all knew that they were pretty unhappy with the whole situation, and as a result, my return home the mornings after a sleepover were uncomfortable for everyone.

:lol: :lol: Fucking skank did the walk of shame back to her parents’ house! Why wait until college to experience that shame from peers? She got an early start on her career in whole hog sluttery. Later, in college, shaming glances would bounce right off her.

But in reality, permitting sleepovers with a partner can be one of the healthiest ways to keep teens safe since they are getting to learn about having sex in the security of their own homes

Dads love it when their daughters learn about having sex under their roofs. As long as it’s safe and secure, her orgasmic moans traveling up to Dad’s bedroom can only be the sound of a father raising his daughter right.

Sexuality is not an amorphous entity that lives separately from our children and which we need to protect them from unilaterally. Rather, it’s a part of who they are and something they’ll benefit from nurturing and developing.

Sexuality doesn’t need nurturing and developing. It pretty much happens on its own. But what fun is that when you can be in the running for demon mom of the year and encourage your daughter to take a cock up her ass while dad tries to drown out the sex noises with the Beats headphones you bought him for Kwanzaa?

But many of us live in environments where any openness about kids and sex is seen as potentially harmful. And as a result, the attempt to raise sexually healthy kids can seem like an uphill battle.

Maybe that’s nature’s way of telling you not to do it, you dumb bitch.

But even if you were raised in a household where the topic was utterly taboo, it’s never too late to send more positive messages about sex to your own kids – even if doing so seem a bit unnatural at the start.

Author: Ellen Friedrichs.

Read Full Post »

“Heads I win, tails you lose.” Rarely are the machinations of subversion so conspicuously visible.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: